Posted on 01/25/2016 3:30:34 PM PST by NYer
Francis met with members of the Roman Rota on Friday
Pope Francis said there can be no confusion between God's plan for marriage as an indissoluble bond between one man and woman who are open to life, and other sorts of unions.
"The Church, in fact, can demonstrate God's unwavering merciful love toward families, especially those wounded by sin and life's trials, and at the same time proclaim the essential truth of marriage according to God's plan," the Pope said on Friday, in a meeting with members of the Roman Rota. Francis holds the annual meeting to inaugurate the Vatican court's judicial year.
Pope Francis said the court, which hears requests for marriage annulments, helps support families and the truth about the sacred bond of marriage.
In evaluating and judging marriage cases and contributing to formation, the Roman Rota helps promote and proclaim the truth, he said.
When the Church, through the court's service, seeks to declare the truth about marriage in each specific case, it always bears in mind that those "who, through free choice or unfortunate circumstances in life, live in an objective state of error continue to be the object of the merciful love of Christ and therefore of the Church, too."
The two gatherings of the Synod of Bishops focused on the family were occasions of "in-depth, knowledgeable discernment" and they gave the Church a chance to tell "the world that there can be no confusion between the family desired by God and any other kind of union," the Pope said.
"The family, based on indissoluble, unitive and procreative marriage, is part of God's 'dream' and the Church's for the salvation of humanity," he said.
The Church will always offer the truth about marriage, he said, "not as an ideal for the few, despite modern examples based on what is fleeting and transitory, but as a reality that, with Christ's grace, can be lived by all the baptised faithful."
That means there is great pastoral urgency for adequate marriage preparation, for example, he said, with a kind of marriage "catechumenate" that was suggested during the synods on the family. A catechumenate would entail a longer process of formation before marriage, as well as during the years right after the wedding.
While the family is considered to be a "domestic Church," he said, the Church is the family of God. Therefore, the church must be filled with a loving, "family spirit," where people are "no longer strangers and sojourners," but members of God's family, he said.
The Church -- as both mother and teacher -- knows that not every one of her children is perfect, he said.
"The Church knows that some Christians have a faith that's strong, formed from love, strengthened by good catechesis and nourished by prayer and a sacramental life," the Pope said, "while others have a faith that's weak, neglected, unformed, poorly taught or forgotten."
The Pope reiterated Church teaching that the level of a person's faith "is not an essential condition of matrimonial consent" and in fact, he said, it is not unusual for engaged couples to go into a marriage with a limited understanding of the fullness of God's plan.
"The lack of formation in the faith and even error concerning the unity, indissolubility and the sacramental dignity of marriage invalidate matrimonial consent only when they determine" or condition a person's will, he said.
Precisely for this reason, "errors which concern the sacramentality of marriage must be evaluated very carefully," he said.
You are very welcome.
Fox’s Andrew Napolitano Calls Pope Francis A “Communist” And A “Marxist” For Linking European Refugee Crisis To Global Poverty.
Judge Napolitano: “This Particular Pope ... Is Somewhere Between A Communist With A Lowercase ‘C’ And A Marxist With An Uppercase ‘M’”
I am so glad you asked this question, ebb tide! It is explicitly answered right in the words of the Holy Spirit through the Holy Prophet Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 16:49
"Now, this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.">
[50] And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.
The Bible speaks of four sins as crying out to Heaven for vengeance:
Scripture speaks of the "sin of Sodom" being, in fact, multiple sins:
(Ezekiel 16:49-50)
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
"Abomination" surely includes man-on-man sex, and that's not all it includes. Also called "abominations" in the Bible are:
There are six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him;And there's more, I just got tired of typing.Additionally, Scripture lists:
- Haughty eyes,
- Lying tongues,
- Hands that shed innocent blood,
- Hearts that plots wicked schemes,
- Feet that are quick to run to evil,
- False witness who utter lies, and
- Those who sow discord among kindred.
- (Proverbs 11:1,20)False scales, a crooked heart
- (Prov 17:15) Acquitting the wicked and condemning the just
The Bible does not treat homosexuality quite differently than the other sins. In fact, both in the OT and the NT, it invariably includes it in "sin lists" with many others.
St. Paul's sin catalogues, plus St. John's line-up in Revelation, all list sexual sins in with idolatry, greed, fighting, and every other kind of sin:
I suspect some people do that because they are not personally tempted by homosexual vice, but are tempted by many of the others. For instance, who, these days, accuses himself of "abomination" for "neglecting the poor and needy" or for "sowing discord"?
Shedding of Innocent Blood(Gen 4:10)
The Sin of Sodom (Gen 18:20-21, Ezekiel 16:48-51)
Oppression of the Poor (Ex 2:23-25)
Defrauding Workers of a Just Wage (James 5:4.
Thanks for proving my point. Otherwise, why are the third and fourth sins listed above not inclusive under the second one?
Because Sodom’s unique sin that cries out to Heaven was homo sex.
"Some people"? Get real; over 98 percent of the humans are straight. You give the gay lobby too much credit.
"I don't think we should try to isolate homosexual vice as a somehow unique kind of wickedness, nor minimize the abomination of all these other sins."I suspect 98% of us do that because we are not personally tempted by homosexual vice, but are tempted by many of the others."
Thank you for that improvement.
(Ezekiel 16:49-50)
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
The point is that the sins (plural) of Sodom, which were abominations, included homosexual vice, pride, avarice, gluttony, covetousness, other sexual sins, oppression of workers, neglect of the poor.
These things so commonly go together. The Prophets of Israel and the Doctors of the Church listed sexual and economic sins together. Medieval homilists, in their Lenten sermons, used to group these three: Usury, Luxury, Sodomy.
Perhaps you then can explain why Lot offered over his daughters to the men beating on his door for sex but he refused to turn over the visiting men.
Give it a rest. Homosexual sin is unnatural and a sin in itself that cries out to Heaven.
Why don't you read Genesis in full context and see exactly when God decided to destroy Sodom? It was immediately after the sodomites were beating on Lot's door for homo sex.
>>How many of them do you suppose were homosexuals?<<
All of them.
>>Was Lot right and just to offer the violent mob his two virgin daughters “to do with what they liked”?<<
See my answer above. Lot knew they were all homos and thus knew his offer would be declined.
I was not aware you were this defensive of fudge packers.
Was God right and just to order Abraham to slay his beloved son, Isaac?
I answered your questions.
Why haven't you answered mine?
(2) "Lot knew they were all homos and thus knew his offer would be declined. This is not stated or even implied in the text, and in terms of motivation it makes no sense. If he knew it was pointless, he would not have made the offer. Why would he? It gains him nothing. It's quite apparent he offered his daughters to be gang-raped as a means to an end: to divert the crowd away from assaulting his angelic visitors.
(3)"You [are] ...defensive of fudge packers." Absurd. I said that homosexual acts are --- like many other sins as specified in Holy Scripture --- abominable, acts of grave depravity, and in no case can they be justified. How is that "defensive of fudge packers"?
Only in you biased mind.
Duh? Why aren't you counting Lot and his two male visitors and and his two future son-in-laws as heterosexuals in your 100% figure?
So Lot went out, and spoke to his sons in law that were to have his daughters, and said: Arise: get you out of this place, because the Lord will destroy this city.Genesis 19:14
Your continued defense of sodomy being no different than immoral heterosexual sex sickens me.
You'd be better at a being a Protestant than a Catholic; seeing the way you cherry pick the Bible to defend sodomy as no worse than immoral heterosexual sex.
P.S. When Adam and Eve were created there were 0% homosexuals.
It's not only implied, it's obvious! Did any of those homos take up Lot's offer of his daughters.
Those are your words, not mine.
It's you, also, who said "Get real, over 98% of humans are straight."
So I'm just comparing one ebb tide saying with another ebb tide saying. I, myself, didn't say either of these things. I am asking you to explain your apparent contradiction.
As, perhaps you can. Who knows? I'm all ears.
"Your continued defense of sodomy being no different than immoral heterosexual sex sickens me."
This is a truly nutzoid statement. I never "defended" sodomy on any terms whatsoever. What I said, repeatedly, literally, is that it is an abomination, an act of grave depravity, and that it can not under any circumstances be justified.
Please note that heterosexuals commit sodomy, too. There are even male FReepers --- yes, right here on this forum --- who have justified sodomizing their lawful wedded wives. This is damnable, hell-bent, unnatural, comparable in some ways to contraception, sacrilege, and blasphemy. I will not name names. I hope they have left this Forum forever.
Nice list. Please keep it updated. You’re going to need it in these trying times. I, too, thought until this thread that the Pope had previously given the nod to homosexual marriage. Your list shows that is a wrong conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.